Monroe v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SEAN EVERETT MONROE, Case No. 20-cv-07295-SK 8 Plaintiff, 9 y. ORDER REGARDING STANDING 10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, 11 Defendant. 12 In his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff makes a constitutional challenge to the 5 13 || administrative proceedings. It is not clear whether the parties have squarely addressed whether S 14 || Plaintiff has the standing to raise this challenge. Regardless of whether the parties address 3 15 || standing, “[flederal courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues such as a 16 || standing.” Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir.2001) (citations 3 17 || omitted). Therefore, the Court has “both the power and the duty to raise the adequacy of 18 || [Plaintiffs] standing sua sponte.”. In the interest of fairness, the Court will provide the parties an 19 || Opportunity to brief whether Plaintiff has standing to assert the constitutional concern at issue. By 209 || no later than January 21, 2022, Plaintiff shall file a brief of no more than five pages to address standing. Defendant shall file a response of no more than five pages by no later than January 28, 9 || 2022. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: January 14, 2022 . . 0s _ Attn (ww SALLIE KIM 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28